domingo, 10 de agosto de 2014

LEARNING FROM NATURE

LEARNING FROM NATURE:
Architecture and design in the first biodigital age
Text published in Alberto T. Estévez, “Aprendiendo de la naturaleza”, in ESTÉVEZ, Alberto T.
(ed.),2nd International Conference of Biodigital Architecture & Genetics, ESARQ (UIC),
Barcelona, 2014
(At the website, www.albertoestevez.com, you can follow the state of affairs, including
projects, research and writings displayed in the different sections of the page).
Learning from nature

It is obvious that saying “learning from nature” symbolically refers to “learning
from all things” (title of the Spanish edition Robert Venturi agreed on for
“Learning from Las Vegas”). Although the preposition used provides nuances,
learning “from” nature also means learning “with” and learning “in” nature,
even “knowing nature” itself, without any preposition. Each expression has its
significant nuances, which should not be discriminatory, but enriching when
considering them as an interactive interrelated whole. Along the same lines of
what was once published about genetic architecture, about the fact that
nowadays it is no longer about building “in” nature, but building “with” nature,
and even building nature itself, equally without any preposition.

The title also refers to the fact that more than half a century ago, after
reclaiming the values of popular culture (which the aforementioned book took
part in), we are now –having assumed the previous one- in another phase,
another age, with other urgent planetary needs, and other technological
knowledge and possibilities. This is the reason why the (Viennese)
seccesionist slogan written in gold letters: “to every age its art” continues to
be up-to-date, even though there are always those that are absent-minded
and, due to their (still?) limited cultural level, believe they are part of the
avant-garde. They use clichés or revivals –in reality- of other times, which will
always exist and which we appreciate, something that cannot be denied.

It is indeed true that trends, tastes and tendencies come and go with time.
Some are more ephemeral than others, but surely sooner or later they will
give way to others. Paradoxically enough, they appear condemning those
established, even if only because human beings constantly need to be
attracted to something. Likewise, humans need to feel they are the attractors,
in order to feel more alive. When something new interests a human being, he/
she uses it, consumes it and keeps on searching, while, at the same time,
when humans have something new to show others, it satisfies them to see
they are the subject of attraction to others in their own search. It constitutes a
marvellous subliminal human business, which turns us into the most
extraordinary community in pursuit of personal and collective happiness.
Despite all our misery –which we recognise, as eventually we connect in a
more and more subtle way- being a human person in this world is the most
valuable in this universe.

This is the reason why the words that circulate on the Internet attributed to
Nelson Mandela –although he apparently did not say them- in a speech of the President of South Africa pronounced in 1994, citing the book A Return to
Love (1992) by Marianne Williamson are still up-to-date:

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of the universe [‘a child of God’, it is written in the original book].

Your playing small does not serve the world.

There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure
around you.

[‘We are all meant to shine, as children do’]. We were born to make manifest the glory of
the universe [‘of God’, appears in the book] that is within us. It’s not just in some of us;
it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence
automatically liberates others.”

With the healthy pride these words reveal to us, getting to know ourselves,
recognising what we really are is the first step of this “learning from nature”,
as we are nature. Undoubtedly, we have the duty requested in the
aforementioned sentences, as well as the commitment, to move the sensitive
hearts of people by means of our work, dedication and intelligence. It is a task
that also resounds in this other sentence by Le Corbusier: “Gaudí was a great
artist; only those who move the sensitive hearts of gentle people remain.”
And, as Le Corbusier also said- “Architecture is the starting point of those who
want to lead humanity towards a better future”, and now, more than ever
before, architects are needed...

Obviously, here in Barcelona, we have an advantage over others, because –
as Antoni Gaudí said- “the inhabitants of the countries touched by the
Mediterranean feel beauty with more intensity”. Let it be said -smilingly- that
there are few places better than this one to study architecture.

Nature, an eternal mirror

Returning to the subject of trends, tastes and tendencies that come and go,
as soon as their respective definitions have been pronounced their
obsolescence begins. The moment one of them raises its voice declaring the
others obsolete, it is signing its own death sentence. On the other hand, it has
been confirmed that nature is an eternal mirror for human aesthetics, as well
as for its aspirations. Year after year, generation after generation, nature
never becomes obsolete and it never tires. It has always been, is and will be,
as perennial as an open book, unique and indivisible. Nature is an
inexhaustible source of inspiration, imitation and /or learning. Biodigital
architecture and genetics, defined as directly involved in its incardination
“with” and “in” nature, is thus assured “durability”. It could even be said that it
is a guarantee of “classicity”, and adapts to the times. Even more so when
new techniques open up new fields that are still unexplored. We are living a
great epic and heroic age. It is an age of opportunities where the brave and
daring will launch themselves onto the unexplored and become the pioneers
of the biodigital and genetics age.

Thus, the closer the processes of architectural creation are to nature, the less
obsolete and more “eternal” the result will be. It is necessary to listen to the
language of nature and reply to it coherently if, in the end, nature and the
entire universe are written in mathematical language, as Galileo Galilei
suspected. We are talking about languages that are always valid and reduce
the arbitrariness of our decisions when harmonising them. Science itself,
“philosophy said, is written in this great book (I call the universe), which is
permanently open to our eyes, but cannot be understood if we do not first
learn how to understand the language and the characters it is written in. And it
is written in mathematical language". This provides us with control, efficiency
and a harmonious accuracy that enables us to exclude arbitrariness as much
as possible.

In spite of the discouraging news –not without reason- that time and time
again has us on tenterhooks, this present time is the best, as –like never
before, although this is not the way it seems- respect towards all creatures
and towards our surroundings has increased. The need to understand that we
are “protectors” of nature and guardians of the environment has grown, so as
to avoid that the signs of destruction and death accompany us on our path in
this world of ours. Every time a whole species is destroyed, something totally
irreparable, a specific and unique molecular chain that expresses itself in a
way we call life, is destroyed. On the contrary, the entire universe appears to
us as a gift and -indeed- in it we discover a genuine grammar from which we
do not only learn criteria for its use but also for its destiny, especially now that
the development of genetics is opening up an incredible new cosmos of
possibilities never seen within the known cosmos.

In this context, and in the words of the one who does not mind being copied,
we cannot only understand ourselves as isolated beings, but it is not enough
either to understand ourselves as a group, as a human group. This will still not
be sufficient in order to be able to read the book of life completely. Human life
is connected to the environment in which it develops and to the other beings
present in this environment. Thinking human life is possible independently of
the environment and other human beings could end up being an “idolisation”
of the human being. The integrity of nature thus turns into an enormous
challenge, and its consistent development to ensure our subsistence
becomes an even great one, if possible.

Precisely because we possess consciousness and intelligence, we have to
live our lives with an unavoidable responsibility towards the entire universe. It
is a responsibility that does not only consist in defending the earth, water and
air as gifts that belong to us all, but also in protecting human beings against
self-destruction. The whole planet is crying. We can feel it, hear it almost, and
it is waiting for us to protect it: in the same way the human being is waiting.
The solution is to be found at its origin, in nature and its teaching.

Everything can indeed be solved by learning (in depth) from nature. At all its
levels, from the most “internal” and intra-molecular one, accessible today
thanks to genetics, to the most “external” and superficial one, which has also
been imitated by human beings from the moment they came into existence. It
is not a coincidence, for instance, that human beings are attracted to the sight
of fire, earth (rocks under the action of water and wind, geological crystals
under the action of physical and chemical processes), water (the sea, waves)
and the air (clouds, smoke). It furthermore coincides with the four roots of
Empedocles, the four primitive elements, which confirm how their changing
forms permanently remain configured by actions or laws that affect the whole
as well as every part alike. Architecture and design, which also follow similar
laws, equally evoke a similar attraction: something invisible to the human eye
that “from the inside floods” each cell, its entire appearance and even its most
remote corners (continuity). It resounds in all its parts, configures the whole
(Concinnitas) and inevitably controls its constant evolution (emerging system).

Along the same lines as a primitive imitation of nature, the term biomimetics
has undoubtedly received favourable criticism in recent times. It appears
everywhere as a positive value in a wide range of fields. However, it does not
seem entirely appropriate or accurate in its application, as it has acquired a
sense that is too broad and diverse. In reality no biomimetics, a mimesis of
life, can copy or imitate nature without further ado. Said term is being used
when in fact it is merely a formalist inspiration –sometimes far away- from
nature. It is an inspiration, not an imitation. The same word is also used when
what we are talking about in reality is a previous observation of a living being,
which leads to synthesising a characteristic that can be of interest for its
application in different fields, eventually followed by its proper application,
which is not imitative either. There is thus no such thing as a mimesis, but
rather a learning process, learning from nature, mother and master, as we
would put it metaphorically. What is produced should thus more appropriately
be called biolearning, which is different to biomimetics (mimesis, imitation,
copy of nature), or what could be described as bioinspiring.

Paradoxically enough, in the strict sense, “nature” does not exist. It is only a
human abstraction, a simplification used in order to understand one another.
Misunderstandings arise when the parameters that define it are not well
established. Simultaneously, different people refer to different terms and
viewpoints. Hence, when Louis Sullivan said the sentence “form follows
function”, he did not know that the rational functionalists of the 20th century
would distort it until turning it into a false dogma. Marvelled, he was referring
to how the visible forms in the so-called nature adapt and respond to the
functions the respective living being needs to unfold.

To those with a more advanced understanding of the subject this subject
could seem out-of-date. However, the truth is that it continues to appear in the
day-to-day criticism and teaching of architecture, as we find ourselves in a
kind of loop critic/teacher- student- critic/teacher-student-etc. that never
seems to come to an end... So then, ”does form follow function”? “Form follows function” but in an endless amount of different ways... From a
protozoon to a tiger, all have the genesitic function or need to (sur)vive, the
secondary functions of eating, reproducing, etc., as well as the most specific
and sophisticated functions and possibilities of each plant or animal.
Nevertheless, one only needs to look at a small meadow in spring to realise
that the same function/s may have been solved for millions of years with a
thousand different forms, colours, aromas, flavours and textures.

Form follows function? Form follows function, but, in infinite ways!

Images: Alberto T. Estévez, from “Still alive”, landscapes and others fleshinesses series,
made with electron scanning microscope on natural structures at its most genetic, primitive
and original level, Barcelona, 2009-10.

LEFT: Glass’ old man. RIGHT: Invocation’s gesture.

Designers and architects need to act in the same way, in the delicate
equilibrium in which form and function have to feed one another mutually to
be solved and used, recognising the architectural “biodiversity” as a value, in
the same way it is recognised in nature. However, when starting their task,
they need to understand they have to define the “species” and the “breed”
they will configure until getting to the final specimen to be created. What they
are designing needs to have the characteristics of a coherent and harmonious
system from all its viewpoints. In this incipient task, the question “Am I making
a gazelle, an elephant or a tiger?” needs to be of use to them.

Breeds of buildings

(“between quotation marks and in brackets”)

“A good idea is much better than skill”, said one, while “a bad idea will never
result in a good completion”, exclaimed another, as, “no good project can
result from a bad idea”, concluded a third one... And so on and so forth, all on
the lips of wise, reputable, admired people... Those words must have some
credit at a later stage.

The first question then arises: which idea of a building or an object do you
have? Do you want to build a lemon tree? Do you prefer a silverfish? A
giraffe? This serves to explain, by way of a Herculean task, when –as said yet
another person- “architecture cannot be taught, it can only be learned”; or a
variation of the same, “architecture is vision, impossible to teach, difficult to
learn”.

In order to get closer to how to apply it to architecture and design, the most
tangible part of the “idea” of a living creature would be its respective DNA (to
understand one another in layman’s terms): something invisible to the human
eye, that “from the inside floods” each cell, its entire appearance and even its
most remote corners (continuity). It resounds in all its parts, configures the
whole (Concinnitas) and inevitably controls its constant evolution (emerging
system). These are the same conditions of seduction as what we said about
fire, earth, water and air: the same conditions of seduction architecture and
design must show.

Whatever we call it, the DNA of the building –we could almost say its soul, or
the “deepest” part of its being- needs to be clear in the mind of its creator,
“breathing life” in the project by means of a system, which will make it grow on
its own. It obviously needs to be a strong idea with potential, or else it will only
produce a pathetic being that does not rouse any empathy or reactions of
pleasant recognition in people.

Such an architectural design will only need to be given an appropriate,
balanced “diet”, seen to down to the last detail; the necessary “hours of
sleep”, reflection and rest; in a favourable environment to ensure its “survival”,
and that is saying something! It is always in pursuit of coherence between the
architectural genotype and phenotype, between the internal and conceptual
“engine” and its harmonious final and constructive implementation (all this
written in a broad sense by way of explanation).

It also needs to be ensured that in its transition, teachers –because of their
own limitations, obsessions and frustrations- and the social context, do not
torture it and turn it into a “mentally” twisted, odd, mutilated architectural
being. In other words, because of ignorance –or carelessness- a good idea
(difficult to come up with and/ or identify, and easy to ruin) cannot be belittled.
As not everybody is capable (it is rather unusual), no matter how talented one
considers oneself to be (which is rather common), lesser intelligence and
coarse sensibility can improve by making an effort, but they can never
change, although the mediocre youth (because of his youthful conceit and the
lack of knowledge of his own grey existence) “boasts” more than the old man
(who knows himself 10 times better than the youngster). What does not help
either is the current lack of intensity in acquiring culture, or the exposure to
less efficient references that result in getting in contact with subcultures,
pseudo-cultures or even “un-cultures”.

Developed from a powerful seed, provided with a long and fertile life,
conducted with the right amount of freedom, but with the right dose of
discipline is how a project should be carried out, just like in the case of salt:
one either uses too much of it or too little. The exact point of balance is very
delicate, as it could turn into a “point of no return”: Antoni Gaudí was right
when he said that for wanting to be pretentiously too original, one loses the
necessary quality of seduction a building needs to show.

Towards an objective beauty (sachliche Schönheit)

Along the lines of what was said earlier, why do we like looking at bonfires
(fire), cliffs (earth), waves (water), clouds (air)? We never tire of them, as they
calm us, attract us and we all agree we perceive beauty, “objective beauty” in
them. Furthermore, as they move, our interest becomes addictive. Their
shapes do not bore us and because of their complexity, because they change
(without us moving), they even surprise us. When each and every part
responds to the whole, because of objective laws, physical and chemical
determinants, genetic ones in the case of living beings that need to carry out
specific functions; when each part is reflected in the whole and the whole is
reflected in the parts, an organic, organised continuous, coherent, united
connection exists; when each and every one of these words turns into a value
for architecture and design, always moved, created by common external
physical-chemical forces and/ or internal ones driven by DNA.

When the determinants are almost purely and exclusively genetic, or at least
still mostly genetic, when the consequences of a specific diet, habits,
climatology, a specific and distinguishing genetic inheritance, or whichever
other random external determinant, are still not completely reflected, it is then
when the emerging character of life driven by DNA “clearly shows” its own
force more: it is then when unanimous, spontaneous and popular qualifying
adjectives such as “cute”, “lovely”, “sweet” are on everyone’s lips, something
common when ones sees a puppy or a baby.

All this supports the “objective beauty” Antoni Gaudí talked about, when
something has certain characteristics that make the definitions of beauty
comply and that, in addition, coincide in qualifying it as such. However, in the
time of Antoni Gaudí genetics did not exist and he therefore did not know
about the consequences of the “natural computer”, which is DNA. And, of
course, he did not have any digital computers that could organise a complex
and united whole, and at the same time measure it with absolute accuracy
and control it. This is why he had to invent his own non-digital computers:
catenary ropes hanging freely in space, which, thanks to the strategic position
of little sachets filled with lead, could simulate to scale the real loads the
building would have to support, ordering its lines “automatically”,
“parametrically”; lines the author did not directly and with pinpoint accuracy
decide upon, but rather the “computer” supervised by him to configure an
objective, harmonious, mathematical beauty.

“Objective beauty” thus turns into “necessary beauty” when it becomes a
human need and a duty of architects and designers towards humanity. Willing
to create architecture and design in an equally complex way, that cannot be
used up in the blink of an eye, nor be understood in a second, where every
point of view is different (as we are the ones that move) and therefore
awakens interest and responds to a coherent whole at the same time. It is
nature that shows us the way to create and develop it...

Yet another character, when faced with such dazzling beauty, expressed it
nicely when he said: “It is like a high, like a madness that comes over us. The joy threatens to annihilate us, the exuberance of beauty to smother us.
Whoever has not experienced this will never understand plastic art. Whoever
has never been enraptured by the capricious rustling of grass, the wonderful
hardness of thistle leaves, the rough youth of buds when they emerge,
whoever has never felt captivated and impressed as far as the innermost
depths of their soul by the burgeoning line of the roots of a tree, la fearless
strength of cracking bark, the slender softness of the trunk of a birch tree, the
boundless stillness of extensive foliage, [whoever has never experienced this]
does not know anything about the beauty of forms.”

Antoni Gaudi expressed this same passion too when he said, “I seized the
purest and most pleasant images of nature. Nature, which is always my
master (...) The great book, always open and which we need to make an effort
to read, is the book of nature; Other books are taken from this one and
include the errors and interpretations of human beings. Everything comes
from the great book of nature (...). This tree near my workshop: This is my
master!”

Learning from Tree

Wandering along such paths, the “learning from nature” in the title of this
article could be further specified in what is here called “learning from tree”,
words Toyo Ito borrowed from Antoni Gaudí when he pronounced them at one
of his conferences in Barcelona:

“1. Trees generate order in the process of growing over time.

2. Trees generate order by repeating simple rules.

3. Trees generate order through relationships with their surrounding
environment.

4. Trees are open to the environment.

5. Trees are fractal systems.”

The organic aspects of his work have made him stand out: the continuous
organic, formalist and conceptual understanding, as if generated by a
coherent system that resounds in all the parts of the whole in a harmonious
symphony, filling a building with a specific character, determining it as a
species, as special. A certain geometric and morphogenetic complexity,
perceived as harmonious, represents the DNA of the building. This is what
Toyo Ito has learned from trees, the same thing Antoni Gaudí intuitively knew
about trees. It is this learning we share here, learning from the advantages of
nature to design architecture using the advantages of digital tools. This
obviously leads us to understand one another with regard to digital
organicism, which I declared to be the first vanguard movement of the 21st
century at the beginning of this century.

Fractality conditions: Alberto T. Estévez, Fractality images.

Beyond Toyo Ito’s intuitions with respect to fractal trees, the research I have
been carrying out since 2008 using a scanning electron microscope,
concerning the first level in which amorphous masses of cells organise
themselves in efficient structures in order to resist strain–something relevant
in architecture- led to corroborate, for instance in the case of bamboo and sea
sponges, the fractal conditions living beings grow with: how bamboo and
sponge structures in their turn consist of microscopic bamboo and sponge
structures. Said conditions are also convenient for buildings. Fractals can
nowadays be performed with the help of 3D printing technology on a
millimetre scale, constituting the -so far- solid structures with microscopic
structures, in which lightness and saving of material is maximum for the same
resistance, in addition to increasing its capacity of thermal insulation.

Fractality conditions: Alberto T. Estévez, Fractality images.

LEFT: Fractal people, broccoli people, 2007. RIGHT: My hand, 2011-12

In this discussion (towards the creation of fractal structures) the so-called
“paradox of the brush”, the paradox of “bipeds versus centipedes”, the one of
the loose hair that does not support anything, but a million hairs together that can support the weight of a biped with thick legs or columns, are also
pertinent. It is the same paradox as the one of the ant that, increased to a big
size, would collapse, while thousands of ants together, one on top of the
other, could easily constitute this same big size.

This is something the natural constructive sense of Antoni Gaudí’s homeland
knows well. Actually, if a giant existed in reality it would be deformed. The
human towers that arise as a secular popular tradition show how a lot of
people together, ones on top of others, can reach a “body” of considerable
height.

Biolearning... How far away we still are from it! The assessment of
architecture and its teaching continues to be carried out by conventional
critics, town planners and architects that have not yet left the vicious circle of
rational-functionalism and contextualism. "Sacred word" this, context... But,
eventually, f. ex., are the trees at the streets, parks and landscape around not
"context"? Why they have problems if the understanding of my building is
closer to a tree than to the boxes around (called buildings)?

A tribute in favour of the most “persecuted” terms by the major monopolising
establishment of architecture: emotion, expressivity, beauty, or –let us use the
case of its supposed “arbitrariness”, is always appreciated. However, the
question of the formalist arbitrariness that may be observed in today’s use of
digital technologies is nothing new. We have heard the same old song for
years from those who do not know and who disparage, because of hidden
envy, like in the fable of the fox that says the inaccessible grapes are not ripe
yet.

In this world of rational-functionalist, ignorant and pragmatic dominance,
where the lack of culture activates dogmatism to justify oneself, a will that
“intends to recognise and evaluate the subjective, “arbitrary” and not
quantifiable aspects present in the decisions of design is praiseworthy.”
However, those aspects are not that subjective, arbitrary and non-
quantifiable. When analysing in depth each decision made, specific
“quantifiable” pushing forces always appear. Even the most daring supposed
arbitrariness is guided by the emotional intelligence of the subject at work. No
matter how secret the decisions made with the heart, the psyche, the soul, or
whatever one wants to call them, seem to us, they are not more arbitrary than
those of the mind.

Everything would thus remain a mere terminological discussion, because of
the rashness of human beings when they communicate –and know
themselves- without any rigour. False digital objectivity is as arbitrary as false Cartesian objectivity of the one who choses a sphere, a tetrahedron or a
cube. It is therefore as arbitrary to be carried away by simple geometries,
although they limit arbitrariness, as limiting them being carried away by
mathematical equations integrated in whichever software. In reality, both ways
-digital and Cartesian- make sure we restrict our own apparent arbitrariness.

The circle and the sphere, followed by the equilateral triangle, the square, the
tetrahedron, the cube, etc., are the most basic figures: they are called “pure”.
The “arbitrariness” in their creation is minimum, as a simple measure
configures them. One only has to choose a certain measure and repeat it the
amount of times one wants to. Making fewer decisions in geometry is
impossible, as they are necessary to represent architecture and design in
order to later reproduce them at a scale that is convenient to attain
usefulness. Obviously, this maximum simplicity, which quickly satisfies the
non-physical needs of human beings, disappears as fast as it appears. As it is
easy to understand and know, it bores human beings straight away, and they
need to maintain their interest awake in order to feel more alive. In the same
way one keeps the same note in a music composition pressed for a long time,
we are talking about a unique circle or sphere in architecture and design. This
is why it is correct to say that the simpler something is, the less “arbitrary” it is,
but the shorter the natural human curiosity lasts, the greater the loss of
interest in the piece.

With each decision added to the first one, each subsequent added
“arbitrariness” chosen, the result gains in difficulty and potential interest, if –
obviously – it were solved in an intelligent and coherent manner. Each
decision has to involve its application to the whole. And once again it would
be necessary to learn from nature: nature provides the complexity, we only
need to add the contradiction, if that is how we want to gain even more
depth and interest, until reaching the exact point of seduction mentioned
earlier on. And adding a few “drops” of mystery, a “pinch” of the enigmatic
and/ or symbolic, a bit of surreality, always being careful not to “overdo it”,
which would mean a loss of the necessary “freshness” and grace architecture
and design must evoke.

Alberto T. Estévez, Crucified forest, urban structure, 2009-2010.

Genetic research about control of growth, make growing alive cells for being architectural
material and inhabitable space.

In order to advance more and better one has to free oneself from the
conventionalities of the scene, the ones that appear and label digital
organicity as extravagant, challenging Cartesian geometry. Extravagance?
Considering the organicity of nature, which is millions of years older and more
efficient, what is more extravagant is a pile of square boxes: in order to
recover what we lost with respect to the destruction of our planet, we need to
go back to the origin, to nature.

There have always been people, ideas and tendencies that attenuated the
Cartesian, functionalist and objective architecture: from the humanisation of
architecture, expressionism, surrealism, informalism, organicism, critical
regionalism, contextualism, etc., to post-modernism and the architectural
trends that followed, as well as all those who directly awoke anti-functionalism
without any palliatives: Friedensreich Hundertwasser, Friedrich Kiesler, Hans
Hollein... an entire hidden legion. One only has to follow the real thread of the
story with finesse, without letting oneself be carried away by platitudes that
explain it to us.

Bio-architecture?

Before ending, as an epilogue to these pages, the following paragraphs need
to be added, even if in “small print”: where there is distinction, there is no
confusion. If we give the word biology the definition of the science that studies
living beings, and if the term bio-art identifies the art that includes living
beings, then why did people start calling bio-architecture the architecture that
simply uses solar panels or that is built with earth, or that draws the well-
known blue and red arrows of airflow, or that takes renewable materials into
account, etc.?

Let us be rigorous...Inventing bio-architecture is not going to be less
demanding, and it will therefore need to be defined as the architecture that
includes living beings. As a matter of fact, this is a very broad definition. A simple garden on a rooftop already represents an architectural element that
includes living beings for the benefit of the users.

Meanwhile, this is the latest great terminological misunderstanding that is in a
sibylline way slipping into architecture, and consequently into the rest of the
fields, possibly by innocent contagion, because of the trend to include the
term “bio” in any product, as it seems to provide the product with prestige,
although it could in fact be a mere business strategy. In that case the word
architecture should be accompanied by a derivative of the terms environment,
ecology, sustainability, etc., anything except the prefix “bio”, which should
exclusively be reserved for what really integrates real life amongst its
architectural elements.

It is obviously not the first time that misunderstandings are introduced in the
use of words on the part of architects. Even respected professors and critics
use them. There are some examples that are still in use, and it seems it will
be impossible to remove them. They have been reported and clarified on
pages 112-114 and 193-196 in the book Al margen: escritos de arquitectura
(Abada, Madrid, 2009). On the one hand, there is the confusion between
Spanish-speaking architects of the terms modernist-modern/ modernism-
modernity, greatly due to the erroneous translations of Anglo-Saxon
publications. On the other hand, the babel between sculpture and
architecture, that comes from the prejudices of rational-functionalism. There is
also an abuse of the words minimal and minimalist, frivolously applied to
architecture. (The word “metaphor” is also used too often in an application
that is excessively lax, and not entirely correct either).

Those who aspire to seriousness must put an end to this by demanding that
people speak accurately.

And, how to call, how to name architecture with alive (bio)elements?: alive
architecture, bioarchitecture, natural architecture. But alive (bio)elements that
define and/or are at the architectural concept or idea, and this means at the
structure, space and skin. And the same also on the other side of the mirror,
on the digital realm. Elements that helps to obtain better conditions, physical
conditions, metaphysical conditions, better use and/or comfort conditions,
more efficiency (sustainability!), application of natural alive creatures and/or
digital alive creatures for a better architectural use, as f. ex. green roofs &
façades (live architecture), and/or robotized roofs & façades (responsive
architecture), always digitally conceived, designed and manufactured.

Also in a new contemporary understanding of nature, of ecology, of
landscape: a not conservationist understanding of nature, of ecology, of landscape (see the Bioplasticity Manifesto). Where are no more architectural
objects in the landscape, where architecture is landscape, and even up to
nature! When architecture is nature! (Getting for architecture the
contemporary fusion, dissolution, melting of background and figure, like art
before).

In the end, the answers to the questions architecture and design will have to
satisfactorily resolve for our planet to survive, would be for “in”, “with” and
“from” nature to continuously to appear, until eventually genetic architecture
would become one with nature. At first, artisanal techniques, or rather
gardeners’ techniques, dating from the time of Babylon, were used. Now we
use biological and digital techniques. In the future purely genetic techniques
will be used, and a final, perfect and total fluency between nature and
architecture will need to be attained.